Justin Trudeau has announced that he would step down as Canadian prime minister after his successor is chosen, probably by the end of March. Trudeau said he is leaving because despite being “a fighter,” he cannot lead his party into the forthcoming election while facing internal party divisions. In sum, his caucus, his Liberal party and the country want him gone. So off he goes, perhaps better late than never, but despite his reasoning, his resignation remains difficult to understand.
Up until Christmas, Trudeau had repeatedly said he was staying on, ready and eager to fight Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre and his party — who are up by more than 20 points in polls — in this year’s election.
However, calls for him to resign had been creeping into the public view, from former members of parliament, Cabinet ministers and even lawmakers.
So why was he forced out? What were the internal party divisions he cited as he stood in front of his home at Rideau Cottage in Ottawa on Monday and announced his departure?
When then-Canadian minister of finance and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland quit just before Christmas, on the day she was due to present the government’s economic update, pressure for Trudeau to step aside grew louder and more frequent.
Freeland could not abide Trudeau’s fiscal policies — too keen to spend in the face of a growing deficit and potential tariffs from US president-elect Donald Trump’s administration; too gimmicky, with the government’s sales tax holiday plans (fulfilled) and intention to send working Canadians a C$250 (US$176) stimulus cheque (unfulfilled).
By the new year, the Liberal party’s regional Atlantic and Quebec caucuses had abandoned Trudeau, as he had lost the support of most of his supporters.
The Liberals swept every seat in Atlantic Canada in 2015 on their way to a sizeable majority and they are unlikely to form a government without robust support in Quebec. The position had become utterly untenable for Trudeau.
Global News said every lawmaker it spoke to said Trudeau had gone too far left. It is a risible claim, but a grievance that had been circulating for some time among a cadre of more fiscally austere Liberals. In a way, that concern was echoed in Freeland’s resignation letter, where she wrote that in the face of Trump’s threat of big tariffs, Canada must “keep our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war.”
Keeping the powder dry meant “eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment,” Freeland wrote.
A first reading of the moment might confirm that Trudeau had indeed gone “too far left” for some in his party, whatever that means, but it misses the deeper fact that as he passed a decade in power, the prime minister had contracted a common and often-deadly political ailment — he became saddled with the baggage one accumulates over time, resulting in dwindling popularity.
Trudeau won a majority in 2015, but he was relegated to minority governments after the 2019 and 2021 elections, each of which he won with fewer votes than the Tories.
His government was left relying on intermittent support from whichever party it could court that day, particularly the left-wing New Democratic party. The dynamic only added to the sense of decline, the feeling that the Liberals were becoming a spent force.
Of Canada’s 23 prime ministers, Trudeau ranks seventh in length of tenure, just behind Stephen Harper, whom he beat to form a government in 2015. Harper made it nine years and 271 days.
Jean Chretien, who ranks fifth, lasted just more than 10 years before being forced out by an internal party faction.
The man who ranks just below Trudeau, the late Brian Mulroney, made it nearly nine years before resigning ahead of the 1993 election that saw his party almost obliterated.
What all these men share is that by the end of their time, they had become a spent force. As a quotation attributed to the former UK prime minister Harold Wilson tells us: “A week is a long time in politics.” So how long, then, is a decade? It is an eternity, a length of time during which citizens can — and will — project onto a leader every perceived irritant or issue of concern, fairly or unfairly, from the state of the economy to the lousy weather.
A politician might be forgiven — or at least understood — when they are down in the polls and counted out, for relying on political gimmicks in an attempt to survive the inevitable, but by the end it was all rather desperate for Trudeau and bad for the country.
Having managed to make it through the rise of Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic and more mundane political challenges, Trudeau was trying to achieve four election wins in a row, something no Canadian prime minister, including his father, has done since Wilfrid Laurier accomplished it more than 100 years ago.
The Liberals would now choose a successor to Trudeau and that person would probably learn the hard lesson that the party’s fortunes are not primarily about anything so complicated as ideology or policy agendas at this point; rather, they are a function of time and its inexorable march forward.
While it might be cold comfort today, the Liberals might be the beneficiaries of the iron law of time when it inevitably comes for their opponent, although they might have to wait a decade or so.
David Moscrop is a columnist, political commentator and the author of Too Dumb for Democracy: Why We Make Bad Political Decisions and How We Can Make Better Ones.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS